APHC010482722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1084/2025 Between: GUDIPATY SURYA TEJA, S/O. GUDIPATY PRABHAKAR RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, HOUSE NO.8- 30/K/10-3, EDAIAH NAGAR COLONY, ROAD NO.6, HEMANAGAR, BODUPPAL, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SIRUPURAPU VENKATA AMAR DEEPTHI, W/O. GUDIPATY SURYA TEJA D/O. SIRIPURAPU SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, UNDER PARENTS PROTECTION, R/O.D.NO.4-89/1, NETHAJI NAGAR, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, GOLLAAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. GUDIPATY MAHATHI, D/O. GUDIPATY SURYA TEJA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, UNDER MOTHER PROTECTION, R/O.D.N0.4-89/1, NETHAJI NAGAR, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, GOLLAAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SARANU PHANI TEJA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 24.06.2025 passed in FCOP(MC) No.159 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Saranu Phani Teja, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that, Respondent No.1 having influenced by her parents, left the matrimonial home long back. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 hardly stayed with the Petitioner for three days. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.1, who is the mother of Respondent No.2, being an employee, is also liable to pay the minor daughter and the Petitioner cannot only be overburdened with the maintenance of Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that he has to lookafter his mother. Learned counsel would further submit that the maintenance granted to Respondent No.2 is excessive and exorbitant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the impugned order is well-reasoned and passed in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the minor child’s right to maintenance is absolute, irrespective of the duration of stay with the father. The Petitioner cannot evade 3 his primary obligation by shifting responsibility onto Respondent No. 1 merely because she is employed. Learned counsel would further submit that, the plea of maintaining his mother does not override his statutory duty to maintain his minor daughter. The quantum awarded is reasonable, considering the child’s needs and the Petitioner’s financial capacity. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded in the impugned order do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The obligation of a parent to maintain a minor child is a statutory and paramount duty, which cannot be diluted on the ground of disputes between the parties or the employment status of the other parent. The contention that Respondent No.1 is employed does not absolve the Petitioner of his primary responsibility to maintain his minor daughter. Similarly, the plea regarding the Petitioner having to maintain his mother cannot override his obligation towards his child. 6. Considering the requirements of Respondent No.2, who is the minor daughter of the parties, and taking into account the status of the Petitioner, who is stated to be a Software Engineer and is also having joint family property along with Respondent No.1 valued at about Rupees One Crore, the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- per month awarded towards the maintenance of Respondent No.2 appears to be just, fair, and reasonable and does not call for interference. 4 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Order dated 24.06.2025 passed in FCOP(MC) No.159 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:01.04.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1084 OF 2025 Dt.01.04.2026 Dinesh